131–140 of 708 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This lack of clarity in law will likely result in huge issues in the sale of your startup if you ever go that route. Who wants to buy a potential lawsuit because of a database selection?
There are always "potential" lawsuits, and stripes already use many many licensed dependencies with various proprietary licenses.
"And to be clear, this change most likely has zero effect on you, our users. It has no effect on our customers that engage with us either in cloud or on premises." No, that's just not true. So many users, from small hobby side-projects, to large open source projects, and mega-corps care about the licensing of dependencies, each for their own reason, and will not want to build on top of proprietary software that impos…
So what should we be using instead of elasticsearch for logs? To mitigate that licensing risk?
Since AWS implies that Elastic is involved in the offering, I'd sue AWS for defamation. Having your name associated with a AWS service, and such a shitty service at that, cannot be good for your business.
I assume the trademark thing should be a slam dunk? That seems like the most blatant trademark violation ever.
What else would you call the Amazon Elasticsearch Service? Isn't that just Nominative fair use: referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark? Especially when it launched and there wasn't a fork.
"And to be clear, this change most likely has zero effect on you, our users. It has no effect on our customers that engage with us either in cloud or on premises." No, that's just not true. So many users, from small hobby side-projects, to large open source projects, and mega-corps care about the licensing of dependencies, each for their own reason, and will not want to build on top of proprietary software that impos…
So what should we be using instead of elasticsearch for logs? To mitigate that licensing risk?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe the issue most are taking here is the license itself that elasticsearch now has, I think its the relicensing of existing contributions (ironically including those from AWS and their employees) which were originally under a true, well-accepted and liberal FOSS license. If elasticsearch had this license from day one, that would be fair enough, but many people do not freely contribute time and effort to…
Elastic is not and legally cannot change the license of code contributed in the past. That code will always carry the original license.
This blog post strikes me as poorly written, overly emotional, and light on reasons to care. While not Amazon-sized, Elastic is itself a rather large company. Am I supposed to be upset that you're having difficulty getting even larger because of Amazon? Considering you're the experts on this product, shouldn't you be confident in your ability to differentiate from someone offering it as an afterthought? If anything,…
In addition, the fact that API’s are not copyrighted makes this even more in favor of the big enterprises like Amazon, as they can release something with the same API.
Honestly, the problem of how to sustain an open source business in this environment is an open question.
This is fine. No seriously. Hear me out. If you are a proponent of capitalism then this is how the system works. The little fish grow into big fish. The big fish eat the little fish. The ecosystem suffers. It has always been this way. Many of us remember Microsoft in the nineties. Fewer will remember the phone or oil industry doing the same. Don’t fight this issue. Fight the system that tolerates this pattern. Money…
Their license literally says they have the right to use this code as they're doing, shouldn't be mad at them for that. Imagine putting a sign on your lawn that says people can walk on your lawn and are even allowed to poop on it if they feel like it and then getting mad at them when they do so. That being said, I support their right to change their license to whatever they like if it helps them survive as a business…
Most free/open source software licences come from a different time. In most cases they are applied because the authors want to do open source and it's expected that the licence is enough to uphold that spirit. But it's not enough and hasn't been for a long time now. The AGPL was created for this reason but oddly developers have gone the opposite direction and "permissive" licences have become the fashion. Many of them are now realising there was a reason for licences like GPL and AGPL after all.